This archive is no longer updated. Visit http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk/site/blog/employment-blog/ for the updated archive.
Friday, 7 February 2014
Tribunal Fees: Judicial Review Result
Thanks to Ed McFarlane of Deminos HR for preparing this case summary
Was the imposition of fees for Claimants to bring Employment Tribunal proceedings unlawful?
No, holds the High Court in The Queen on the Application of Unison v Lord Chancellor
(Moses LJ and Irwin J), turning down the Union’s judicial review
application against the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal
Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (the ‘2013 Order’). However, there is some
scope for the fees regime to be reconsidered as its impact becomes
There were four challenges to the lawfulness of the 2013 Order.
(1) The requirement to pay fees as a condition of access to the
Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal violates the
principle of effectiveness since it will make it virtually impossible,
excessively difficult, to exercise rights conferred by EU law;
(2) The requirement violates the principle of equivalence since the
requirement to pay fees or fees at the levels prescribed means that the
procedures adopted for the enforcement of rights derived from EU law are
less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions;
(3) That in reaching the decision to introduce the new fees regime
and in making the 2013 Order the defendant acted in breach of the Public
Sector Equality Duty, and
(4) That the effect of the 2013 Order is indirectly discriminatory and unlawful.
All challenges were dismissed:
(1) Having considered the impact of the fees regime on various
hypothetical Claimants with a range of income and capital at their
disposal, the High Court held (para. 40) that the fees regime provided ‘…sufficient opportunity even for families on very modest means…’ and noted that ‘…Proceedings will be expensive but not to the extent that bringing claims will be virtually impossible or excessively difficult…’
The Court noted that a hearing fee might be due before exchange of statements, and said that it expected that a ‘full exchange of information’
would be encouraged by a Tribunal before a hearing fee is due (para.
27), which might help Claimants assess the likelihood of success.
(2) In respect of the equivalence issue, the High Court considered
whether the fees regime was comparable to non-Employment Tribunal
claims, including a Human Rights claim in the County Court. The Court
noted that the cost regimes were different and that free ‘early claim’
conciliation with ACAS would be available for ET claims (from April 6th
2014), and that it is expected that successful ET Claimants will
recover their fees, and held that the principal of equivalence was not
(3) The Public Sector Equality Duty was not breached, there had been
consultation over the level of fees and the fee remission scheme could
offset adverse impacts arising from fees. The Court noted that the
Public Sector Equality Duty is a continuing one (para. 69) and if the
introduction of fees has a ‘…damaging effect on the fundamental
obligation of the Lord Chancellor and government, to eliminate, so far
as humanly possible, discrimination against those with relevant
protected characteristics and advance equality of opportunity, then the
Lord Chancellor will have to take such steps as are necessary by
adjusting the regime…’.
(4) The Indirect Discrimination challenge focused on the impact of the
higher fees for Type B claims (Equal Pay) than Type A claims, and a
disparate impact on the group affected (i.e. women). The Court felt that
a Judicial Review was not the appropriate way to resolve evidential
issues over adverse impacts but was prepared to accept as a general
proposition that women earn less than men, and so went on to consider
the objective justification for Type B fees, and found itself unable to
reach a conclusion (para. 88). The Court decided, noting the duty under
the Equality Act on the Lord Chancellor, to wait and see and to ‘…hold the Lord Chancellor to account should his optimism as to the fairness of this (fee) regime prove unfounded…’ (para. 89).
The door may be open to future challenges, if not to the fees in
principle, then the level of fees and of Type B fees in particular.
Meanwhile, Unison has issued a press release announcing it intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
This archive contains Daniel Barnett's employment law email bulletins which are posted when an email bulletin is sent out. To receive these bulletins by email you can subscribe for free.
Over 28,000 people, including solicitors, barristers, HR professionals and employment tribunal judges, receive these bulletins.
Daniel Barnett is a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, with over 15 years' experience defending companies facing employment tribunal claims and associated commercial disputes. He is listed as a leading employment barrister in the ‘Legal 500′, and described in the Times Law Supplement as having “carved out a strong reputation”.
Daniel regularly advises and represents large and small businesses in discrimination claims, TUPE problems, team moves, removal of confidential business information, and unfair dismissal disputes. He has been appointed as employment law advisor to Acas since 2004, and is the author or co-author of seven legal textbooks.